Intelligent Giving

Intelligent Giving is a website for charity donors run by a small, not-for-profit company based in Bethnal Green, London. It was founded in 2005 by two former journalists, David Pitchford and Peter Heywood, and launched on 1 November 2006.cite web | url=http://www.intelligentgiving.com/charity_chooser/charity_profiles/how_we_review#history | title = The History | publisher = Intelligent Giving | accessdate=2007-01-18]

Overview

Intelligent Giving aims to raise public interest in charitable giving and advises donors how to make the most satisfactory use of their money. It is one of several organisations, including New Philanthropy Capital (UK) and Charity Navigator (US), that have formed for this purpose, and it operates in a relatively new sector in the not-for-profit arena. It seeks to bring its findings to as wide a readership as possible, employing chatty and casual English on its website and issuing timely press releases of charity-related material.cite web | url=http://www.intelligentgiving.com/press | title = Press office | publisher= Intelligent Giving | accessdate=2007-01-19] The authors align themselves with donors, not with the charity fundraising community.

ervices and work

.cite web | first=Dave | last=Pitchford | url=http://thecharitysleuths.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-annual-reports.html | title = Why the Obsession with annual reports?| publisher= Intelligent Giving | accessdate=2007-01-18] Intelligent Giving claims to assess transparency using 43 criteria derived largely from research carried out by the Charity Commission in 2004.cite web | url=http://www.intelligentgiving.com/for_charities#transparency | title = For Charities: How we calculate transparency | publisher = Intelligent Giving | accessdate=2007-01-18] Intelligent Giving gives a percentage score for the transparency, or "Quality of reporting" of each charity.cite web | url=http://www.intelligentgiving.com/charity_chooser/charity_profiles/how_we_review | title = How We Review | publisher= Intelligent Giving | accessdate=2007-01-18]

The website also contains overviews of charity sectors, an explanation of the full range of ways to give, interviews with givers and short articles by experts. It also provides a discussion forum for the donor community.

Media coverage

In November 2006, Intelligent Giving published an article about Children in Need, a big charity, which attracted wide attention – some of which Intelligent Giving regarded as misleading - across the British media.cite web | first=Dave| last=Pitchford | url=http://www.intelligentgiving.com/articles/features/the_times_children_in_need_and_us | title = The Times, Children in Need, and us | publisher= Intelligent Giving| accessdate=2007-01-25] The article, titled “Four things wrong with Pudsey” described donations to Children in Need as a ‘lazy and inefficient way of giving’ and pointed out that, as a grant-giving charity, Children in Need would use donations to pay two sets of administration costs. It also described the quality of some of its public reporting as 'shambolic'.cite web | first= Adam | last=Rothwell | url=http://www.intelligentgiving.com/articles/features/four_things_wrong_with_pudsey | title = Four Things Wrong With Pudsey | publisher= Intelligent Giving| accessdate=2007-01-18]

In March 2007, Intelligent Giving claimed that English Premiership football clubs were not giving enough to charity.cite web | first=Neill| last=Ghosh| url=http://www.intelligentgiving.com/articles/features/footballs_big_guns_caught_offside| title = Football's Big Guns Caught Offside| publisher= Intelligent Giving| accessdate=2007-04-11] Chelsea FC was particularly criticized in this work, and an alleged member of the Club's media team threatened an Intelligent Giving employee with violence in response to media reports.cite web | first=Oliver| last=Marre| url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/0,,2052514,00.html| title = Pendennis: Chelsea play hard - off the pitch as well as on| publisher= The Observer| accessdate=2007-04-11] cite news | first=Paul| last=Malley| title=League of Scrooges |publisher=Daily Star| accessdate=2007-03-26]

In June 2007 the organisation analysed the Jewish charities it had profiled and concluded, “They are pretty appalling in terms of transparency.” Details from the report were published in the Jewish Chronicle. cite web | first=Simon| last=Rocker| url=http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s18&SecId=18&AId=53556&ATypeId=1| title=‘Secret’ charities under attack |publisher=The Jewish Chronicle| accessdate=2007-06-29]

In July 2007 Intelligent Giving won the New Statesman New Media Award for Information & Openness. cite web | url=http://www.newstatesman.com/200707190060
title=New Media Awards 2007 Winners |publisher=The New Statesman| accessdate=2007-07-19] -

October 2007 saw Intelligent Giving name and shame in The Guardian the rugby union charity, Wooden Spoon Society, for providing a very low return on its fundraising activities.cite web | first=Rob| second=Booth| url=http://sport.guardian.co.uk/rugbyleague/story/0,,2200914,00.html| title=Watchdog blows whistle on rugby charity's £2m bill for high living | publisher=The Guardian| accessdate=2007-10-29] Intelligent Giving's argument was refuted by John Inverdale, a BBC broadcaster, in an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph as "misguided reporting that fails to understand how fund-raising operates." It was also condemned by Wooden Spoon in its statement [http://www.woodenspoon.com/3_1328.php "Putting the Record Straight"] .cite web | first=John| second=Inverdale| url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/sport/2007/10/31/soinve131.xml| title=Dick Pound can still help future Tom Simpsons | publisher=The Daily Telegraph| accessdate=2007-12-12]

In December 2007 an opinion piece in the [http://www.motor.org.uk/ UK Motor Industry Magazine] viewed IG as "a self-serving organisation...incapable of understanding the difference between overheads and cost of sales"Fact|date=January 2008

Charity Commission

Intelligent Giving has been criticised by the Charity Commission following the complaint it raised regarding Wooden Spoon. In a letter dated 13th November 2007 a Charity Commission representative disagreed with IG's financial analysis and stated, "The Commission does not concur with your view that the charity's costs were excessive, taking into account the method of fundraising which is employed by the Charity" cite web | first=Face| second=Book| url=http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1768286&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=6634121030&aid=-1&id=754600286&oid=6634121030] . This judgement subsequently attracted attention in the Sunday Telegraph, where it was given as an example of the Charity Commission's poor decision-making process.cite web | first=Alasdair| last=Palmer| url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/01/20/do2002.xml| title=To be charitable, this commission is warped |publisher=The Sunday Telegraph| accessdate=2008-01-21]

Voluntary sector response

Intelligent Giving says that it has received good and bad responses from charities in equal measure.- Fact|date=December 2007 Negative responses include: Steve Taylor of Sue Ryder Care, who decried the organisation as a ‘self appointed guardian’ with ‘little demonstrable understanding of the operating framework’ of charities; the Institute of Fundraising, which called its research methods ‘rudimentary’; and Sir Terry Wogan (a trustee of Children in Need) who condemned its work as 'contemptible'. cite news | first=Annie | last=Kelly | url=http://society.guardian.co.uk/voluntary/story/0,,1959140,00.html | title=Pudsey's worst nightmare | publisher=Guardian Unlimited | date=2006-11-29 | accessdate=2007-01-18] cite news | first=Terry | last=Wogan | url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/11/19/do1911.xml| title=Wogan's World| publisher=Daily Telegraph | date=2006-11-19 | accessdate=2007-01-19]

Intelligent Giving's analytical approach - which results in the production of league-tables that rank charities by their degrees of transparency - has also caused concern. Detractors argue that charities do complex work that cannot be summed up in tabular form.Fact|date=January 2008 Intelligent Giving, however, says that its approach is significantly more nuanced than that of other charity-profiling services, such as Charity Navigator in the US.cite news | first=David| last=Pitchford | url=http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity_news/full_news.cfm?ID=21148| title=Are charities really afraid of committing to transparency?| publisher=Third Sector | date=2007-01-10 | accessdate=2007-01-19]

ee also

* Charity Navigator - financial analysis and ratings of US charities
* GuideStar - UK and US databases and information on charities
* Development Ratings - research and recommendations on international development charities

References

External links

* [http://www.intelligentgiving.com/ Intelligentgiving.com] Official website